Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36882632›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2023

Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening by Disability Types: a Systematic Review.

Amarachukwu F Orji, Maryam Y Sodeyi, Charity I Anoke, Kevin E Cevasco, Bright C Orji

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Amarachukwu F OrjiDepartment of Global and Community Health, College of Public Health, George Mason University, Peterson Hall, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA. aorji@gmu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2620-3952
Maryam Y SodeyiAppalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA.
Charity I AnokeDepartment of Economics, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria.
Kevin E CevascoDepartment of Global and Community Health, College of Public Health, George Mason University, Peterson Hall, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA.
Bright C OrjiTexila American University, Georgetown, Guyana.
George Mason University · USAppalachian State University · USEbonyi State University · NGTexila American University · GY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies showed that the receipt of cervical cancer screening among women with disabilities is low. Some disparities may also exist within the subpopulation of women with disabilities. This systematic review synthesized the current literature on the receipt of cervical cancer screening by disability type. PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCO, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar searches were performed to identify studies between April 2012 and January 2022. A total of ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. All studies employed a cross-sectional approach (n = 10) and most used multivariable logistic regression (n = 7). Two of the ten articles included classified disability types as basic action difficulties and complex activities, while eight of the articles classified it as either hearing, vision, cognitive, mobility, physical, functional, language disability, or autism. The association between disability types and cervical cancer screening was inconsistent across publications. All the studies except for one however indicated that evidence of lower screening rates exists within the subpopulation of women with disability. The available evidence supports the conclusion that disparities in cervical cancer screening are evident in disability subgroups; however, evidence is inconsistent regarding which disability type experiences lower receipt of screening. Screened articles utilized different definitions for disability adding to the inconsistency in the results. More focused research using a standardized definition for disability is required to determine which disability type experiences significant disparities in cervical cancer screening. This review highlights the need for healthcare organizations to target specific tailored interventions to improve the quality of care for specific disability subgroups.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMass ScreeningPhysical ExaminationCervical cancerDisabilityHealth disparitiesPap testScreening

Identifiers

PMID36882632
OpenAlexW4323535184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.